Windows 8 Analysis: Is the New Ribbon Interface More Efficient?

Share on

In a previous article about Windows 8, we unwillingly started a big debate about the ribbon and its efficiency. Some people do not like the fact that Windows 8 uses it more widely than Windows 7 and complain that it is less efficient compared to the older interface from Windows XP. In order to continue the debate using facts instead of subjective opinions, we decided to make a benchmark and compare the efficiency of the ribbon, as it is used in Windows 8 versus the interface we are all familiar with from Windows XP. Let’s see the results.

The Testing Procedure

We took two computers: one with Windows XP Service Pack 3 and one with Windows 8 Developer Preview. Both computers had all the latest updates installed.

Then, we enabled all the toolbars and buttons that can be found in these applications. For example, we enabled all the buttons in the Quick Access Toolbar found in the Windows 8 applications. In Windows XP, we enabled all the toolbars in Windows Explorer. All these buttons and toolbars were enabled using the default menus and settings. We did NOT run any registry hacks or third party tools to enable additional functionality.

Then, we wrote down what we think are the most common tasks you can execute in these three applications, in both Windows XP and Windows 8. We measured the number of steps required to complete these tasks and compared the results. Any task that could not be executed both in Windows XP and Windows 8, was excluded from measurements. For example, in Windows XP, you cannot insert a URL as a link to a text selection in WordPad and Redo does not exist as a functionality in Windows Explorer.

We wanted to make an apples vs apples comparison so we did not use any keyboard shortcuts to speed up any of the tasks. Everything was done using the mouse, the menus and buttons available in each Windows application. The keyboard was not used unless it was required to make a mandatory text entry to complete a task (e.g. renaming a file or folder).

If you want to see the steps we went through, to complete each task, you can find a downloadable PDF with details, at the end of this article.

The Ribbon in WordPad - Up to 9% more efficient

The first application we analyzed was WordPad - the default document editor included in Windows.

We analyzed a series of 12 common tasks people execute when working with a document in WordPad. The results were surprisingly similar for most tasks. The ribbon only helped when creating a new document or when inserting a picture into a document.

All in all, I think it is fair to say that the ribbon brings a small efficiency improvement of up to 9%.

The Ribbon in Paint - Up to 19% more efficient

Let’s go to Paint - the tool which, most probably, is the world’s most basic and most used graphic painting program. We tested a set of 16 tasks in this application.

Here, the improvements were much more noticeable, with one exception - using the free form selection tool is done faster in Windows XP.

In Paint, the ribbon is up to 19% more efficient versus the interface used in Windows XP.

The Ribbon in Windows Explorer - Up to 23% more efficient

Last, but not least, we tested Windows Explorer - the most used application of all three and the one which started the debate over the efficiency of the ribbon.

We compared a number of 15 tasks which we believe are executed pretty often by people using the tool.

In Windows Explorer we noticed the biggest improvement of all tools - 23%. Not only does the ribbon give quicker access to the different options but it also includes new functionality like buttons for Redo, Copy path or Invert selection operations.

Conclusion

Personally, I did not expect to see such big improvements. Especially not after the controversial discussions we had in our article with 12 Reasons why Windows Explorer in Windows 8 Rocks, where folks complained that it occupies too much screen space and it is also less efficient. I think the results speak for themselves: the ribbon in Windows 8 does give faster access to the functionality existing in each program.
People complaining about its lack of efficiency are simply subjective and biased. But... a person is entitled to his or her opinion and choice. I guess it’s a great thing Windows 8 allows you to minimize the ribbon in all programs so that people who do not like it, can simply skip using it.

Comments

But therein lay the problem ... some of the commands are *not* the same ... in both cases with WordPad ... you clicked the button with the white sheet of paper which does "New Document" ... MICROSOFT changed the defaults of the button! In XP it gives you the choice of document type, in case you were doing something that you needed text only, RTF or Unicode .. what's the default now in Windows 8? unicode? how do you know? and so if I wanted to make it Text only in Win 8 then what? I wouldn't have the ability till I did save as? Or I would have to find an options button somewhere so that I'm restricted to ONLY what can be done in text mode? And how does *that* effect the Save As if I'd have to do it when saving, rather than starting with text only?
.

And it isn't just about the clicks required ... just as you turned on toolbars that were optimized (microsoft's selections) to include additional functionality .. those are advancements and changes microsoft made in the newer version ... if they wanted they could update the toolbar in their old version ...
.

I'm surprised you didn't say "oh and you can't insert a JPG in Wordpad XP".
.

And lastly .. Copy and Paste ... in any application ... in Windows XP ... when you select it in the menus of the basic programs.. what do you see there? Keyboard Shortcuts ... one of the reasons? Because on the basic tools, you're treated to a learning experience without being told you're getting a learning experience.
.

At some point ... your brain should have realized CTRL C and CTRL V are for Copy and Paste ... but there is no such thing in Windows 8 ... its just buttons.. how would you know that CTRL C & V do what they do? How would you know anything about what keyboard shortcuts are or do? You'd have to see someone do it.. or read about it somewhere..
.

You pick the basic tools and miss one of the reasons they were included in the first place.. to give users some functionality and to start them on a basic learning curve.. all someone learns with Windows 8 is how to move their mouse hand more.
.

Everyone *could* use a typewriter to do a letter ... why even bother to do it in Wordpad? Just as time goes on... and you realize you need more functionality WordPad isn't the program you open, you've got MS Word/Office, or WordPerfect, or even OpenOffice applications that perform more than the "basic" functions.
.

And in time you graduate so you're not using Wordpad, or paint ... although sometimes the simple tools are still used, but I've not used wordpad since the last time I looked at one of microsoft's idiotic "Release Notes" documents, I do still dabble with Paint when I do a screen shot or want a simple resize (Image -> Stretch/Skew enter a % less than 100) But wordpad? doesn't happen in my world.
.
The ribbon bar isn't just about click through, but optimization, and training. Give an idiot a Ribbon Bar for copy/paste, and I'll show you someone that thinks you're a god when you can do CTRL C/V. (especially in Paint, good god why would you waste your time moving the mouse after selecting the item, to go all the way up to copy/paste, edit menu or not)

Regarding the document type - you can specify it during the Save As operation. There you choose if you want a text file, a Microsoft Office Word document, an RTF, etc.

As for the fact that the old interface showed you the keyboard shortcuts, that's still being done in Windows 8. If you keep your mouse over a button, you will see its name, a short description of what it does and the keyboard shortcut. The education is still being done.

I think the idea behind the ribbon is that most users still use the mouse for most tasks. Only "power users" such as you or me will use many keyboard shortcuts. And, for people who are not like us, the ribbon works better. They have all the buttons available there and for some tasks it takes less steps to do the same thing.

Now... regarding the usage of WordPad instead of Microsoft Office Word or other solutions - that's a personal choice and not the subject of this article. We simply wanted to benchmark the ribbon in all the applications where it is used in Windows 8.

Right.. mouse reliance yet again. File-Help menus are Alt+Key activated and don't require waiting for "on hover" (plus on XP you could easily set menus to always show the underline for "alt" activated itmes)
.

and then there's the "during save/save-as" for file type. That's all fine and well, but again during the creation of the document it gives you full access to all types of tools that are wasted the moment you save something as text. (wordpad vista did the same thing if you changed the default from not showing the format bar, ruler, etc) So in the comparison, what happens is that microsoft just presumes to give you full functionality, and then force you to choose on the back end without a clear or better understanding of the differences. Thus the loss of a click or two for "new" simply because they defaulted your choice, rather than giving you one before you hit the "save" button.
.

And one dig that I hadn't yet pulled out against the ribbons, which most people quip that you can just "hide" or "auto-hide" is the space those ribbons occupy. They don't just display as an overlay, they actively shift the edit/display area.
.
One of the worst offenders in this case is Outlook. You're typing an email, the body of the email doesn't "scroll" the screen until your cursor is at the bottom of the email window ... then you need to activate the "auto-hidden" ribbon, which shifts your typed body and cursor 5 or more lines off the bottom of the view area.
.
Classified as smart? No. not even remotely. Microsoft treated the ribbon as a Toolbar, rather than a Menu system. The difference, a toolbar has a set place that if you display the toolbar, it will take up X space and shift the viewable area around ... duh, that's the problem, menus don't do that, they are opaque or can be a degree of transparent but they appear over top of, not squishing itself into any given area
.
The only way the ribbon bars will have a place for me, is if they activate and hide like the standard menu system in XP does. You don't see the items on the "edit" menu till you activate the Edit menu.. then how Microsoft decides to show you the tools for Edit is up to them, though I would argue that they still need to give choice to the user, if I want buttons and icons or with/without text, that's one thing... if I don't want them, I should have the option to make those items smaller or text only (like the menu system in xp currently is).

Regarding choosing the format of a new document in WordPad only when you save it - I agree with you that it can be wasteful if you plan to write a text file and you start to do formatting of the text. Even though, it might not be a real problem. People most probably use Notepad to write a small text, without formating and use WordPad when they want to create a small, formatted document. And then, this whole discussion is moot.

Anyway, the analysis I made was not about that. I only counted the number of clicks needed to execute a task using both interfaces. And yes... you need to make less clicks to do the same thing. Which means some time savings for users.

Ok the number of clicks.. but example "New Document" it wasn't the button that changed.. the same button "New Document" is there in both programs.

The button does the exact same function, start a new document... it was Microsoft that changed the assumption about what type of document was to be defaulted. So the "Ribbon" doesn't get this "point" or score for something it did no differently.

In wordpad xp/vista ... if you do "File New" you get the same prompt for document type ... if there were a "File" menu in word pad, and it had a "new" that would have changed as well ... again not because of the ribbon, but because microsoft altered their functions' defaulted selections.

(& apologies for using Periods as paragraph separators in longer text, for what ever reason HTML/Text only the editor just will not put in an extra return!)

"Anyway, the analysis I made was not about that. I only counted the number of clicks needed to execute a task using both interfaces. And yes... you need to make less clicks to do the same thing. Which means some time savings for users."

Not true, this is about efficiency - since the title is "Is the New Ribbon Interface More Efficient?"
so this article is all bull crap. you can't measure efficiency based on just the number of clicks.
it may take fewer clicks for most tasks but that does not make ir more efficient at all such as, for example letss compare office 2005 to 2007.
ok it takes me a about a minuite to find a single button in the Ribbon UI say - "new header button"
now in 2005 it would take me 10 - 30 sec to look across about 3 command bars and find - "insert new header"
thus I lost a good amount of time just finding a button then after more typing I have to find say - "new paragraph".
and not only this but you can sometimes get lost in the Ribbon UI, its true for both that the more you use it the easier it is to use, but the difference is.
Ribbon you have to remember the "Tab" plus the location of the button.
on 2005 you only have to remember the location of the button.
plus having past button at the top of the screen is useless because a right-click paste would leave the mouse closer to your work.

so I agree with Niels the Ribbon UI needs to go, I learned how to use shortcuts like Crtl+C/V myself by using programs like office 2005 which display a shortcut next to the command, like right now if you pressed Alt in IE or FF and then clicked "edit" you would see (cut/copy/paste) with Crtl+X/C/V next to it.

Need to try and get people to learn shortcuts to make work and such easier.
NOT make it easier my putting a pretty little button as a shortcut.

"And yes... you need to make less clicks to do the same thing. Which means some time savings for users."

This does not hold true because the "mouse user" loses a lot of time hunting for the unintuitively hidden selection in the current ribbon system. The menu system is FAR more intuitive and therefore does not waste time hunting for the command that they need. I can type a letter in less time in Zoho than I can in Word 2007 or Word 2010 because of the inefficient ribbon. Mouse clicks is not the only factor in efficiency. I submit that the average 'susan secretary' will do more work in a given amount of time with a menu system than with a ribbon system. This is the test of efficiency.

I was not going to even comment on these latest "findings", however I do wish to take one point in your response to TG2 to task. "Only "power users" such as you or me will use many keyboard shortcuts. And, for people who are not like us, the ribbon works better." In my experience, the exact opposite is true. It is true that the typical user uses the mouse rather than keyboard shortcuts, but that is the end of the accuracy of this statement. I am a 70 year old who has used personal computers to perform certain functions since the mid '80s. The computer has primarily been nothing but a tool and has been not the end product, but only a means to the end product. I am not a power user (aka computer geek) and do not use command lines and use very few keyboard shortcuts. My mind does not do pure memory work well and needs to proceed via a logical path from the beginning to the end of a process. I do believe that I am in the vast MAJORITY of computer users and far more typical in overall skill level. I spend much time with the ribbon searching for some given function that is hidden by "power user" developers who developed the application for "power users" and have ignored the needs of the typical "non power user". The ribbon, tho improved from the original Office 2007 ribbon, is still anything in the world BUT intuitive in comparison with the old drop down menu format and one step DOES NOT logically lead to the next step for the typical logically thinking user. It is only the power user who has better than typical pure memory capacity who can even claim to effectively use the ribbon.

I assume that the empirical data in your testing to be accurate, but I also assume that personal preference has considerably influenced your conclusion. While I have not conducted such a test as you describe here, and do not use Paint or Notepad due to the adoption of the inefficient and non-intuitive ribbon, I find that I can produce a Publisher document consisting of photographs, various text boxes, word art, etc. (for instance), much quicker in Publisher 2003 (or Publisher 97) than in Publisher 2010 due to the inefficient, non-intuitive "memory-intensive" ribbon.

Microsoft has left us more typical users out in the cold with their "power user" influenced, screen robbing ribbon.

The conclusion of the article is based on the numbers I've seen when making the tests. There are savings in number of clicks you make when working only with the mouse. That's all. I did my best to be as less biased as possible.

I did not evaluate if the ribbon is organized in a more "logical" manner or not.

Also, most people keep referring to Microsoft Office. I think that the ribbon in Microsoft Office is a different story than that from Windows 8. In Windows 8 you have relatively simple applications with a limited number of options and features. This means that on the ribbon you will have all the options visible, accessible and split into a small (and mostly more logical) number of tabs.

While in Microsoft Office you have a plethora of options and features crammed in a limited ribbon space. This means that Microsoft had to "cut corners" in this product, more than it did in Windows 8. Therefore while you might be frustrated by the ribbon in Microsoft Office, you might not be as much in Windows 8.

Now... regarding the logical split of options... that's a very subjective evaluation. To me it is logical while to other people it is not. Here I don't think we will ever agree. There is no conclusion that applies to all use-cases & users.

I'm sorry but the article you reference is only a collection of frustrations, not a true analysis. Also, some of your frustrations are generated by the fact that you did not really understand certain features and how they work. They are not necessarily broken. Just your understanding of them is.

Nice comparison. :)
Have you considered giving more frequently-used features more "weight" in determining the final score? (for example, in the ribbon comparison, "Go back" would have more weight than some of the features that are hardly used.) Such a thing would show the actual, real-world value of each interface even better. :)
Great job, regardless.

That would have complicated things a lot and would have introduced bias. My weight assigning might not be considered relevant by others therefore diminishing the relevance of the whole analysis effort.

"But you can *minimize* the ribbon" [so why complain?].
Some of us are distractable and need the cleanest possible interface.
Minimize doesn't cut it.
The Ribbon reminds me of Metro- perhaps a great thing, if made a choice.
If not, well, i'll hang to my boring old XP another decade or two....